




COFmiGHT DEPOSE 









/ 



1 


♦ 

» 

' 

M 




/ 


H I S T O Pv Y 


-OF THK- 




. V 


ORIGIN AND DGVELOPMEN 


-OF THE- 


Doctriiie of State Sovereiffiity. 


Tracing the Sentiment of State and Sectional Animosity, from Its 
Earliest Sources In the Settlement and Growth of the 
Several Colonies, through the Periods of the 
Continental Congresses, Confed¬ 
eration and Constitu¬ 
tional Union, 

Down to its Culmination in Secession and Reference 
to the “Arbitrament of War.” 

) 



HUKTON l>. KS3IOJM), JMi. 15. 

M 



K 





































"b 


\\ • 







To William II. Mace., A. 3 /., Professor of History 
in Syracuse University, this work i.? resiw^^'ully 
dedicated. * 

( 




Copyright, 1895, hy Burton 1). Esmond. 




preface. 


There are a few crises in World History, and a few' 
principles, evolved in the slow but momentous se- 
(luence of events that constitute certain epochs in 
the j)rogress of the human race, which are of tran¬ 
scendent interest to the student of modern political 
institutions and their manifest philosophical and 
historical significance as the harbinger of Universal 
Peace. Such an epoch was the sixty years of lurid 
grandeur, during which a sterile corner of rock- 
ribbed Hellas developed one of the three great prin¬ 
ciples of that system of government, which is des¬ 
tined to universal sway. Athens demonstrated to 
the w'orld the political virtues of Local-Self-Govern- 
nient. Again, in the Augustan Age of Rome, another 
of the recpiisite elements of this slowly unfolding 
system was exhibited to mankind. In that glorious 
period were achieved the best results that can ever 
be attained by Strong-Centralized-Force. But one 
great principle now remained undiscovered, in order' 
to constitute that obviously most excellent of all 
systems of government; and, during the period 





4 


PREFACE. 


between the first settlements on this Continent and 
the close of the War of Secession, that principle was 
evolved, applied on a grand scale, and thoroughly 
tested. Federation comprises within itself both of 
the preceding elements noted. Centralization, and 
Local Autonomy. Switzerland had, previously to 
the formation of the American Union, elaborated a 
federal system of admirable arrangement and design; 
but it had been restricted in its application to the 
narrow confines of a few sinall Cantons, secure with¬ 
in their Alpine fastness from extrinsic influence and 
intervention. 

To America must ever belong the proud honor of 
having first illustrated to the world the possibility 
of Universal Peace, by the federation of over thirty 
discordant States, separated by three thousand 
miles of space, and by all the diversified interests of a 
great Continent. 

Throughout the period between the victory of 
Wolfe at Quebec, when this Continent was saved 
to the English race, and all their ardent love of 
liberty and propensity for the elaboration of great 
political systems was secured to the Colonies of the 
Atlantic Seaboard to be used in the fabrication and 
development of this great Occidental Empire, down 
to the close of the Civil War, there was one great 
disintegrating force at work in American politics ; 
and it was around this—the contention of State 


PREFACE. 


T) 


Sovereignty against National Unity—that all the 
minor contests arranged themselves. 

This centrifugal force, even at the period of great¬ 
est acceleration of motion of our political machinery, 
was found to be unequal to the concomitant centri- 
pital force, which bound the Nation in a federal 
unit. The experiment, made at such an enormous 
cost of life and property, having, under circum¬ 
stances most favorable to its success, demonstrated 
the converse of the proposition intended to be 
proved, is not likely to be ever again resorted to, 
especially, since the influences set in operation by 
that experiment have gone far to strengthen the 
sentiment of nationality, which subseciuent events 
have greatly intensified. 

The delineation of the salient features of this long 
struggle of principles contending for supremacy on 
the American Continent is the somewhat arduous 
task essayed by the author of this work. Of course, 
in dealing with so long a period of time, and with a 
territory comprising at one time so many different 
colonies, and at another such a great and powerful 
nation, we can hope, within the limits of so circum¬ 
scribed a volume, to depict only those events, 
fraught with greatest consequence in the evolution 
or retardation of the Doctrine of State Sovereignty, 
or of Local Autonomy carried to the extreme of 
peaceful separation or Secession by Force. The 


G 


PRKFACE. 


work begins with the contest in 1G20 between the 
Northern Colony of New England and the Soutliern 
Colony of Virginia, over the fisheries on the coast, 
and ends in 18G5, with the victory of Appomattox, 
and the close of the great struggle between the 
North and the South over the Slavery Question. 


oonsrxEisTTs. 


PART I. 

THE COLONIAJ. PERIOD (1600-177G). 
SECTION I. 

GENERAL STATEMENT. 

SECTION II. 

tp:rritorial controversies (1620-1800). 

1. References. 2. Disputes over the Fisheries. 
8. Massachusetts. 4. Rhode Island and Connecti¬ 
cut. 5. Maine and New Hampshire. 6. The New 
England Union. 7. The Vermont Boundary. 8. 
Maryland and Virginia. 0. Minor Disputes. 10. 
Race and Sectional Disputes. 

SECTION III. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL CONTRASTS (1676-1776). 

1. References. 2. Education. 8. Manufactures, 
Commerce and Agriculture. 4. Social and Political 
Conditions. 



8 


CONTEXTS. 


SECTION IV. 

INTKR-COLONIAL WARS (1690-1755). 

1. References. 2. King William’s War. 8. 
Oneen Anne’s War. 4. King George’s War. 5. 
The French and Indian War. 

SECTION V. 

CONORESSKS BETWEEN 1755 AND 1776. 

1. References. 2. The Stamp Act Congress. 8. 
The Congresses of 1774 and 1775. 

PART II. 

CO MB IXA TION, CONFEDF.RATIOX AND 
FXION (1776-1789). 

SECTION I. 

THE CONTINENTAL CONORESSES OF 1776 AND 1778. 

1. References. 2. The Congress of 1776. 8. 

The Congress of 1777 and the Congress of 1778. 

SECTION II. 

THE CONFEDERATION (1778-1788). 

1. References. 2. Nature of the Government. 8. 
The Purpose of its Founders. 4. The Seat of Sov. 
ereignty. 


contents. 


9 


SECTION III. 

THE CON^STTTUTION^AL CON-YENTION (1787-1789). 

1. References. 2. The Virginia Plan. 3. The 
New Jersey Plan. 4. The Connecticut Coniproniise. 
T). Other Comproniises. 0. Ratification by the 
States. 7. Was the Constitution a “Compact ?” 

PART III. 

THE NA TTONAL PERIOD (1789-1860). 
SECTION I. 

THE DOCTRIN'E OE LIMITED POWERS (1789-1799). 

1. References. 2. The Assumption of State 
Debts. 3. The Petition of the Quakers and the 
Whisky Rebellion. 

SECTION II. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE RIOHT OF PROTEST 

(1799-1820). 

1. References. 2. The Virginia and Kentucky 
Resolutions. 3. The Replies of the Other States. 
4. The Louisiana Purchase. 5. The Embargo 
Act. 6. The Hartford Convention. 

SECTION III. 

'I'HE DOCTRINE OF SECTIONAL DIVISION (1820-1830). 
1. References. 2. The Missouri Compromise. 


10 


C()2sTEXTS. 


,‘J. The Tariff of 1821 1 The Clierokee Controversy, 
n. The Tariff of 1828. 6. The “(treat Debate". 

SECTION IV. 

xrLLiFiCATioN (1880-1888). 

1. References. 2. The Nnllification Ordinance. 
8. Jackson's Nullification Proclaniation. 4. The 
Conii)romise Tariff of 1888. 

SECTION V. 

SnAVERV AXl) DISUXIOX (1888-18()0). 

1. References. 2. Division. 8. The x4dmissioii 
of Texas. 1 The Coinproniise of 1850. 5. The 

Charleston Convention. (». Personal Lil)erty Lavs. 
7. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill. 8. The Lincoln- 
Don; 2 :las Del)ate. 0. The Campaign of 18(50. 

SECTION VI. 

RE-UXTOX (1805-). 

I. Refere!ices, 2. Reconstruction. 



3R: T X. 


THE COLONIAL PERIOD (1600-1776). 

SECTION I. 

GKXERAL STATEMENT. 

Events freciuently may be traced to causes ol> 
scared by the loii{^ lapse of time. Differences in the 
religious, geograi)hical, economical and social condi¬ 
tions of peoples frequently perpetuate themselves in 
permanent differences of character, interests, 
society and government; these when they meet and 
clash become the causes of contention, separation 
and enmity. 

The public assertions of the doctrine of State Sov¬ 
ereignty, and the deplorable attempt at a jjractical 
application of that principle in the history of this 
nation certainly sprang from a clashing of institu¬ 
tions or conditions; now these differences in institu¬ 
tions and conditions may be traced, in part, to influ¬ 
ences and forces set in operation during the settling 
and early development of the Colonies. 


12 


DISPITTKS OVKR THE ITSHERIES. 


SECTION II. 

TERRITORIAL CONTROVERSIES (1G20-1800). 

1. REFERENCES. 

Primary Sources:— Bancroft, I, 200-45; Bound¬ 
aries of Connecticut, 1-79; William’s History of 
Vermont, 200-302. 

Secondary Sources:— Hildreth, I, 268; Fiske. 
American Revolution, 147-50; Epochs of American 
History, 149-84; McMaster, 200-80; Windsor, V. 
259-70. 

2. DISPUTES OVER THE FISHERIES. 

In 1606 the English Government incorporated two 
compaines, known respectively as the Northern and 
the Southern Colony of Virginia. On petition of 
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the “Council for New Eng¬ 
land” was incorporated, November 3, 1620, during 
the reign of James I. Henceforward the Southern 
Colony was known as Virginia, and the Northern 
Colony as New England. 

Gorges in his patent had secured the exclusive 
privilege of ftsliing on the New England coast to the 
members of his own comiiany. This gave rise to a 
long and acrimonious controversy between the rep¬ 
resentatives of the two Colonies in the British Par¬ 
liament. This contest resulted in bitter hostility be¬ 
tween the colonists themselves, since the people of 



MASSACHUSETTS. 


IB 

the Southern Colony continued to encroach upon 
the New England fishing-grounds. In 1()35 the 
“Grand Patent,” as it was called, was surrendered, 
and a division of the territory among the several 
members of the New England Company was effected. 
Massachusetts was settled under grants from the 
“Council for New England.” 

8. MASS A CRUSETTS. (1040-1086.) 

From 1040 to 1660 Massachusetts was i)ractically 
an independent commonwealth. During that period 
she completed a system of laws and government. 
Eeing the oldest and strongest, she was always ag¬ 
gressive towards the other colonies. In 1642 she 
annexed the New Hampshire towns, and a few years 
later absorbed the Maine settlements, then neglected 
by the Masons, who had obtained possession of them 
under grant from the King. In 1675 the Masons and 
Gorges entered complaints against Massachusetts 
for illegally seizing the territory of Maine and New 
Hampshire. Other complaints were also made 
against Massachusetts; the King charged a violation 
of the Acts of Navigation and Trade. The Royal 
Commissioners appointed to investigate the charges 
separated both Maine and New Hampshire from the 
Hay Colony, but they were soon afterward reunited 
to her. In 1670, the King demanded that Maine 
should be surrendered by Massachusetts to the 


14 


RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT. 


Crown as a royal possession. An ev-asive answer 
was given by Massachusetts, and in 1G84 her charter 
was declared annulled, and two years later Andros 
was sent over as a Royal Governor. The charters of 
Maine, Plyinoiith and New Hampshire were also 
annulled at this time and they were included within 
the territory over which Andros was authorized to 
act as Governor. The colonists were much chagrined 
that their charters should be disregarded by James 
II, and they did not look kindly upon their new 
Governor. They were also opposed to the union of 
the several colonies under one government. There 
was a spirit of local pride and a desire for complete 
autonomy in each. 

4. EILODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT. 

Rhode Island and Connecticut soon experienced 
the fate of New Hampshire and the other northern 
colonies in having their charters taken away from 
them, and being placed under the governorship of 
Andros; and it was not long before New York and 
New Jersey were also compelled to submit to the 
authority ol the Royal Governor. Andros was 
tyrannical, and his manner of treating the colonists 
did much to unite them in opposition to his govern¬ 
ment. But the sentiment of local self-government 
was strong, and on the overthrow of Andros in lOSl) 
and the return of the old charters to all the colonies. 


RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT. 


15 


except Maine, they each set up their separate colon 
ial government again. Maine, whose charter had 
been witheld by the Crown, continued under the 
government of Massachusetts, now including under 
a new charter Plymouth and Acadia. This spirit of 
local independence of each other characterized the 
colonies down to the time of the Revolution. It orig¬ 
inated in the necessary isolation of the several 
settlements, and was developed and eidianced by the 
diversity of interests and institutions which grad¬ 
ually came to differentiate one colony from another, 
and by the jealousies engendered by contentions 
over territory and by rival prosperity. Thwaites 
says: t‘Tt was fortunate for American liberty 

that a scheme of a consolidation of the New England 
colonies was put forward by the Stewarts too late 
for accomplishment. It was also fortunate that 
Massachusetts was flanked by and often competed 
with by her neighbors, Plymouth, Connecticut, 
Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, who were pro¬ 
tected against her by a jealous government in 
England, and that the Hutch cut off her ambitious 
territorial aspirations to the west. InAhe separate 
colonial life was sown the spirit of local patriotism 
which is now embodied in the American States. In 
New England, as in the South, there was a leading 
but never a dominant colony; the smaller ones shared 


t Epochs ot American History, vol. i, p. 177. 



10 


THE NEW EXGLAND IIXIOX^, 


the experiences of the larger, but were freer from 
calamitous charges, and enjoyed, in some respects, 
governments which were more immediately under 
the control of the people.” 

5. MAINE AND NE W HAMJ\S1IIEE. 

When the division of lands had taken place among 
the members of the Council of New England, Maine 
fell into the possession of the Gorges, as has already 
l)een noted. Gorges having died in 1047, the govern¬ 
ment of the colony came into the hands of the colon¬ 
ists themselves. Their government being very in- 
edlcient, they came gradually to look for protection 
against their Indian neighbors to the strong govern¬ 
ment of Massachusetts. t The result was, as we 
have seen, Maine was finally annexed and for a long 
time remained under the control of Massachusetts. 

New Hampshire was the possession of the Masons. 
Tlie proprietary government which they established 
continued until the time of Dudley and Andros, 
when the colony was united to New York. After¬ 
wards New Hampshire was for a short time under 
the government of Massachusetts. These were all 
forced unions. 

0. THE NEW ENOLAND UNION. 

The first i)roi30sition of union among the colonies 

t Justin Wlnsor. Narrative and Critical History ol 
America, voL iii, p. 219-::i22, 295-339. 


THE XKW KXaLANI) UXlOX. 


17 


was made by Connecticut soon after the close of the 
Pe(iuod War. In 1643, delegates from Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Plymouth and New Haven met at 
Boston. They believed that since they were sur¬ 
rounded on all sides by t “people of several nations 
and strange language”, a union for mutual protec¬ 
tion and defense was desirable. Twelve articles of 
Confederation were adopted, and the league was de¬ 
nominated “The United Colonies of New England”. 
Maine and Rhode Island aj^plied for admission to the 
union, but Avere refused, because their government 
and institutions differed from those of the colonies in 
the league. 

The NeAv England confederacy was merely a 
league, and not a gOA^ernnient. Each proAunce 
Avas jealous of the others, and ail propositions 
had to receive the sanction of the seAmral colonial 
legislatures before they became a laAv. The duty of 
the “general government” Avas to “consider circum¬ 
stances and recommend measures for the general 
good”, X says Lossing. There Avas not the slightest 
abrogation of the doctrine of absolute individual 
soAmreignty; and it Avas the jealousy of the other col¬ 
onies of the preponderating influence and dictatorial 
demeanor of Massachusetts that finally disrupted 

t Tliwaites. Epochs of American ilistory, a^oI. I (see 
topic). 

t Lossing. Our Country, vol. I, page 380. 





IB 

the union, after forty years of rivalry, disagret^ment 
and contention. 

7. VEUMONT (10G4-1791). 

The first settlement in Vermont was made in 1724. 
The Grovernor of New Hampshire had ^iven g-rants 
of land west of the Connecticnt River. The King in 
1()64-1()74 granted to the Duke of York “All lands 
between the western bank of the Connecticnt River 
and the eastern shore of Delaware Bay". Thus rival 
claims were established. New York organized this 
territory into four counties, and began proceedings 
to revoke the grants giv^en by the New Hampshire 
governors, and to give new grants to the same lands. 

The people of this territory in controversy opposed 
the execution of the laws passed by New York, de- 
l)riving them of their lands, and resisted the New 
York Militia, which was sent to enforce the judge¬ 
ments obtained from the New York courts. Ethan 
Allen and Seth Warner esi)Oused the cause of the 
people. A petition to the King met with Royal 
favor, and the government of New York was ordered 
to cease to give grants of land in this territory. But, 
notwithstanding the Royal mandate, New York con¬ 
tinued to give grants and to seize the lands, and re¬ 
sistance to her officers was declared to be treason 
and punishable by death. The townshii)s Avest of 
the Green Mountains organized for resistance. A 


VERMONT. 


19 


petition to the Congress of 1775 was lost sight of in 
the struggle with the mother country. In 1777, 
independence having been declared, the towns com¬ 
posing this disputed territory organized themselves 
into a new state, and petitioned Congress for admis¬ 
sion to the Confederation. But Congress, fearing 
that her interference might alienate some of the 
states, refused to be entangled in the controversy. 

New Hampshire then came forward and acknowl¬ 
edged the independence of Vermont. At that time 
the State of New Hampshire included within its 
territory a part of what is noAV the State of Vermont. 
On account of the natural division, that part of New 
Hampshire located west of the Connecticut River 
petitioned Vermont for admission to that State. 
New Hampshire objected and carried the dispute in¬ 
to Congress again. Congress affirmed the position 
of New Hampshire, and stated that if Vermont 
would vacate her claim to those towns west of the 
Connecticut River, no one, save New York, would 
refuse to recognize her as a State. But Vermont 
could not vacate her claim to those towns without 
causing her internal dissolution; for if their wishes 
were not respected, all the towns east of the moun¬ 
tains would follow them over to New Hampshire. 
Finally all that part of V^ermont located east of the 
mountains did withdraw from the State, whereu})on 
New Hampshire laid claim to the whole of Vermont. 


20 


VERMONT. 


Congress was again petitioned, but fearing lest she 
should offend some of the Siates, deferred aetion. 

Vermont then petitioned for admission to the Union 
of the Colonies, and threatened a cessation of hostili¬ 
ties against Great Britain unless her rights were 
recognized. A correspondence between several 
l)rominent men of Vermont and the British generals 
was begun, and although it subsecpiently transpired 
that no treasonable advice was given to the enemy, 
still it sufficed to bring Congress to terms, and a bill 
was passed admitting Vermont. But still another 
difficulty occurred; boundaries were jiroposed which 
were not satisfactory to Vermont, and, accordingly, 
the terms of admission Avere rejected. A civil Avar 
was now threatened, and Washington, in the inter¬ 
ests of all, hastened to advise the acceptance of the 
terms of Congress. But, Avhen Vermont, for the sake 
of internal harmony, noAV avoAved herself to be Avill- 
ing to acquiesce in the advice of the commander of 
the Continental forces. Congress delayed action, 
much to the chagrin of that State, Avhich had surren¬ 
dered her OAvn rights for the general pacification. 

The matter Avas alloAved to drift until after the adojA- 
tion of the Federal Constitution, Avhen, in 1790, Ken¬ 
tucky Avas to be admitted into the Union, Vermont 
Avas required to maintain the balance between the 
Southern and the NeAV England States. A coiiA^en- 
tion of commissioners from NeAv York and Vermont 






MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. 


21 


filially settled the long dispute in 1791. Verniont 
paid an indemnity of $30,000 to New York, and was 
in turn recognized as a free State and admitted into 
the Union, t 

8. 3IARYLAXD AXT) VIliOIXIA (163.M785). 

There was a long continued dispute Viet ween 
Maryland and Virginia over their lioiindaries, which 
is of some importance in the history of the nation, 
as it led liy a closely connected train of events, to 
the calling of the conv^ention which framed the 
Federal Constitution. The Maryland charter was 
amliiguous in that it defined the boundary between 
that colony and Virginia as coimddent with the 
course of the Potomac River, without stating which 
of the two branches of that river was intended to 
lie designated. It was also uncertain whether the 
boundary extended in a straight line from the source, 
or whether it followed the circuitous course of the 
river. 

Claiborn stirred up a feud between the inhab¬ 
itants of the two colonies, and appealed the case 
to the Privy Council in Plngland. The Privy Coun¬ 
cil sustained Baltimore’s Charter. This Charter 
was again recognized as the legal Charter of Mary¬ 
land, Viy the Articles of Confederation. Finally the 
imposition of excessive tariffs on the Potomac, 


t Williams. History ot Vermont, p. 2l0-:il(). 



MIJsOR DISPUTES. 


lirought about by coiiiiiiercial restriction imposed by 
one Colony on the commerce of the other, and retal¬ 
iation by a counter tarilT, led to the calling of a con¬ 
vention of representatives from the two States, by 
Madison, in 1785, for the purimse of settling the dis¬ 
pute. 

This Congress is known as the Alexandrian 
Convention. The commissioners, finding it difficult 
to agree upon a remedy, and preceiving that simi¬ 
lar conditions of commercial warfare existed between 
other States, advised the calling of a National Con¬ 
vention. The Convention called in pursuance to 
this suggestion met at Philadelphia, ostensibly for 
the pin-pose of settling the commercial disputes 
existing between the several States. To that end it 
had been given power and authority to propose 
amendments to the Articles of Confederation, under 
which the National Gov^ernment was then fast disin¬ 
tegrating into a condition, which all agreed was 
worse than anarchy. This Convention won for 
itself imperishable fame by disregarding its instruc¬ 
tions, and drafting a new Constitution. 

9 . MINOR niSrUTES. 

There were also several disputes over territories 
which are of minor importance. In 1783, Massachu¬ 
setts claimed a block of territory east of Lake Erie, 

,comprising about one fourth of the present State of 


MlNOll DISPUTES. 


23 


Ngav York. Another strip of land was claimed by 
both Massachusetts and Virginia. Just south of 
this was a long; strip of territory, the possession of 
which was disputed by Connecticut and Virginia. 
The latter State also claimed all of what is now 
Northern Michigan. 

There was another little strip of territory, included 
in the Northern part of the State of Pennsylvania as 
at present organized, which was the sul)ject of bitter 
contention between Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 
This was called the AVyoming Territory. In 1782, 
the Federal Court, into which the controversy had 
been carried, decided in favor of Pennsylvaniar. 
Thereupon, Patterson of the last named State, at 
the head of an armed force, marched into the Terri¬ 
tory and drove the settlers away. Much cruelty was 
shown, and many perished of famine and exposure. 
Connecticut at once flew to arms, and a battle be¬ 
tween the two forces was fought. Public opinion 
was now at fever heat. At length Pennsylvania 
disavowed the action of Patterson, and a civil war 
was thus averted, but a bitter animosity had been 
aroused by the aflfair, which it reciuired a long time 
to eradicate. 

Claims were also made to what was known as the 
Narragansett Territory by Connecticut, Massachu¬ 
setts and Rhode Island. The dispute was finally 
settled in 1742. A part of the boundary between 


24 


RACE AND SECTIOJ^AL DISPUTES. 


NeAv^ York and Connecticut Avas not settled until 
1880. 

Such were the controversies between the seA^eral 
Colonies ove)* their territorial boundaries, the 
iininediate and remote effects of which were appar¬ 
ent in the Convention that framed the Constitution, 
and lasted long after the present Government came 
into existence. 

10. RACE AND SECTIONAL DISPUTES. 

Besides these disputes between individual States, 
there was a long rivalry between the Dutch pos* 
sessions on the Hudson and New England; between 
both the Dutch and English, and the French, Avho 
Avere constantly encroaching upon the territory of 
the latter. In the South there Avere disputes be¬ 
tween the Spanish and English settlements. There 
Av ere also disputes betwen the Northern and South¬ 
ern English Colonies over the fisheries, commerce, 
and circumstances arising from the fact that one Avas 
a seafaring and manufacturing, Avdiile the other Avas 
an agricultural people. 

SECTION III. 

SOCIAL AXD ECOXOAIICAL CONTRASTS BETAVEEX THE 
COLONIES (1676-1770). 

1. PEEEPENCES. 

Primary Sources:— Boon's Education in the 




EDUCATIONAL CONTRASTS. 


25 


United States; Doyle’s English Colonies, I. 380-395; 
Johns Hopkins Series (Maryland, Virginia, and 
Washington); Lodge. American Colonies, 5-75, 112-132, 
150-204; Palfrey. History of New England. 

Secondary Sources:— Johnston. American Poli¬ 
tics; Epochs of American History (see topic); Ban¬ 
croft. History of the United States; Hildreth. History 
of the United States; Eggleston. Century Magazine, 
III. Gl, 724, V. 431, VI. 234, 848, VII. 873, 

VIII. 387. 

2. ED VC A TIONAL CONTRASTS. 

The first system of public education in this country 
was established in Massachusetts in 1047. The foun¬ 
dation of Hai-vard College had been established in 
1037. Thus Massachusetts was the first of the colo¬ 
nies to give attention to education, and she always 
remained in the lead in this respect. In New York 
and the middle colonies, laws were enacted, which 
looked to better educational facilities, but they were, 
for the most i)art, not put into execution. 

In South Carolina, no grammar schools were estab¬ 
lished, until 1730, and down to 1770, there were not 
above five. One historian says: “In the Southern 
States education was almost wholly neglected, but 
nowhere to such an extent as in South Carolina. In 
that State prior to 1730, no such thing as a grammar 
school existed. During the Revolution there were 


2(5 MANUFACTURKS, COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE. 

none. Indeed, if the nninber of newspapers in any 
country may be taken as a gage of the education of 
the people, the condition of the Southern States, as 
compared with the Eastern and IVIiddle, was most 
deplorable. In 1775 there were, in the entire country, 
thirty-seven papers in circulation; 14 in New 
York, 0 in Pennsylvania, 2 each in Virginia 
and North Carolina, in (Georgia 1, and in South 
Carolina 3.” t 

3. MAN UFA C '7'UIMJS, C VMMFJ7Cll, AND 
AGUIUULTUlU:. 

New England was from the first the home of man¬ 
ufactures and commerce. The fishing industry was 
also very important. The Southern colonies, save 
Maryland and Virginia, had poor harbors or none. 
As the climate was not adapted to manufactures, 
they became the great agricultural section of the 
country, and, accordingly the center of Slavery, since 
the slaves could not be trusted to perform the more 
difficult and important duties, pertaining to manu¬ 
facturing and commercial industries. Virginia was 
settled mostly by Englishmen, and Maryland by 
Huguenots. In Virginia one half the population were 
slaves, many being white serfs. Thwaites says: 1 
‘Tn 1700 the Southern colonies were without nianu- 

I Me Master, I. 27. 

t Tliwaites, Epochs ot American History, (see topic). 







SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONTRASTS. 


27 


factures; barter was used in trading; no schools were 
then in existence and manners were coarse or 
brutal, while in New England, manufactures abound¬ 
ed, as did fisheries, commerce, and education.” 

4. SOCIAL ANT) POLITKAiL CONTJiCiSTS. 

In North Carolina, two-thirds of the population 
were slaves just prior to the Kevolution. The 
slaves were treated more severely in the Carolinas, 
where they were the most numerous, than in any of 
the other colonies. Owing to the excessive heat, 
they soon wore out, and therefore they were worked 
the harder, during the comparatively short period of 
their capacity for arduous labor, that their masters 
might be reimbursed for the great expense of rear¬ 
ing them. 

In New England, villages and cities were numerous. 
Here the “Town Meeting” system reached its greatest 
perfection. The political organization of Massachu¬ 
setts furnished many illustrations of the working of 
the principles which were eventually woven into the 
fabric of the Federal Constitution. 

The Dutch manors of New York corresponded 
most nearly to the English Manor system of any¬ 
thing on this continent. They had many of the 
characteristics of the old Feudal system. The land 
Avas owned by the great baronial proprietors, and 
was farmed out to the tenants, who came senii-an- 


28 


SOCIAL ANI) POLITICAL COATPASTS, 


niially to the manor to pay the rent. On these oc¬ 
casions the proprietor of the manor g-ave a jj^reat 
feast to all his tenants. Towards the beginning of 
the Revolution the tenants became a source of great 
trouble to the proprietors, the disturbances some¬ 
times amounting to riot. 

In Virginia, Dissenters were taxed for the support 
of the Established Church. Plantation life in the 
South was (piiet and uneventful, and commerce and 
intercommunication followed the course of streams 
and rivers, as the roads Avere few and poor. The 
OAvner of a plantation woidd liaA^e a ship come up 
the river or bay to his home, take on his crop of 
cotton and tobacco, and leaA'e in return a year's 
store of proAusions and clothes. 

Taking NeAv England as a Avhole, Ave may say that 
religious toleration preA^ailed, since those Avho Avere 
objectionable in one colony, Avere AA'elcomein another- 
t “There AA^as perhaps on the Avhole a more demo¬ 
cratic spirit among all classes of the people’^ in the 
middle colonies in 1700, than in either Ncav England 
or th.e South. 

SECTION IV. 

lA'TER-COLOA^IAL AVARS (1090-1755.) 

t Tliwaites. Epoclis of American IIistor3% (See topic, 
Social and Economic Conditions in the Aliddle Colo¬ 
nies in 1700). 






l^UEEX ANNE’s war. 


2'.) 


1 . lUJFEnENCES. 

Primary Sources; —Palfrey. New England; Hil¬ 
dreth, II. 433-513; Bancroft. History of the United 
States. 

Secondary Sources :—Winsor. Narrativ^e and 
Critical History of America; Thwaites. Ejiochs of 
American History. I. 252-257, 27(3-278, 220-223, 273-27(3, 
283-285; McMaster ; Hutchinson. History of Massa¬ 
chusetts; Lodge’s Colonies. 

2. KING WILLIASES WAE (1(390). 

There seems to have been little difficulty in pro¬ 
curing the harmonious action of the English colo" 
nies in regard to military matters during the period 
of the Inter-Colonial Wars. In 1(590, while King 
AVilliam’s War was in progress, a congress of the 
colonies was called. This was the first American 
Congress. All the colonies replied cordially, and 
most of them sent delegates. Harmony prevailed in 
the convention, and a force was ecpiipped and sent 
against Canada. 

3. QUEEN ANNIES WAE (1711). 

During the progress of (^ueen Anne’s War the 
colonies joined in an Attack on Quebec, which 
was defeated by shipwreck. Here again was illus¬ 
trated the willingness of the colonies to unite for 
mutual protection, rather than call on the mother 


30 


Ki:Na GEORGE'S WAR. 


country for aid. But it was only for puri)oses of 
defense, or retaliation against foreign aggressors, 
that concerted action could he obtained, and then 
only for limited periods. 

4. KING GEOJiGirS WAJl (1745). 

In 1745 Massachusetts originated a scheme for an 
Attack on Louisburg, which was then considered the 
"‘Gibraltar of America.” This Avas during the war 
known on this side of the Atlantic as King George’s 
AVar. NeAV York sent artillery, Pennsylvania i)ro- 
visions, Avhile New England furnished the troops for 
the enterprise. 

The expedition resulted in the capture of Louis¬ 
burg. The colonists, elated by their success against 
this strongest fortress in the New AVorld, voted to 
raise sufficient troops and provisions to reduce all 
Canada. All the colonies north of Virginia agreed 
to join in the enteri)rise, but England, fearing the 
growing power of the colonies, refused her aid, and 
the i)roject was reluctantly abandoned. 

5. TILE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR (1755). 

In 1755 Braddock, with a force of English troops, 
met a congress of the colonies at Alexandria. 
Measures for carrying on the war were discussed. 
The colonists, although Avilling to defend themselves 
from the assaults of their enemies, refused to furnish 


THE FRENCH AND INDIAN AVAR. 


31 


money for a joint camijaign. They advised, lioweA^er, 
a general tax, levied by Parliament, Braddock went 
foiAvard with his English troops and a few colonial 
volunteers. The result of that ill-fated expedition is 
familiar to all. 

NotAvithstanding the general unanimity on ques¬ 
tions of mutual defense, the colonies Avere widely 
discordant OA^er (luestions of commerce, internal 
boundaries, and methods of goA^ernment. Each 
colony Avas proud and jealous of her iieculiar insti¬ 
tutions, and, as the common love of the mother coun¬ 
try Avaned, the symbols of iiatriotism clustered about 
the name of the individual colony. In this same 
A'ear there Avas another congress held at Albany, 
Avhich we shall reser\"e to be considered under 
Section V. 


SECTION V. 

CONGRESSES BETAVEEN 1755 AND 1776. 

1 . nEFERENCES. 

Primary Sources:— The Atlantic Monthly, March 
1888; Franklin's Works; Frothingham, 184-230, 296- 
311, 358-381, 398-448; Hildreth, II. 529-531, III. 50-70, 
(Revised Edition) II. 538-559, III. 42-46, 50-70; Jour¬ 
nals of the Congresses of 1765 and of 1774. 

Secondary Sources:— Bancroft (Last Edition), 
III. 149-151, 251-252, 153-164, 279-295, IV. 61-77: 


THE STAMP ACT COA'GRKSS. 


Tbvvaites. Epot'hs of American History, 11. (See 
Topics); Fisk. The American Revolution, I. 14-100. 

2. TJIE STAMP ACT COXGPESS (1705). 

Down to 1755, all schemes of a fj^eneral union of all 
the colonies had come from the Engflisli government, 
and had been advised for the purpose of enabling 
the colonists to defend themselves against the In¬ 
dians, the French, and the Dutch. But these meas¬ 
ures had been regarded with suspicion by the colo¬ 
nies, ever jealous of their liberties. The i)lan i:)ro- 
posed by Franklin to the Congress at Albany in 1755, 
had been suggested by the Lords of Trade in 1754.’’ 
It involved the permanent union of all the English 
colonies in America. This scheme having failed, 
because, as Franklin himself said, “the Crown dis¬ 
approved it, as having too much weight in the demo¬ 
cratic part of the Constitution, and every assembly, 
as having allowed too much to prerogative,” no 
further movement for union was proposed, until the 
one inaugurated by the colonists themselves, in order 
to secure effectual opposition to the oppression of 
the mother country. 

In 1705,.. what was known as the Stamp Act Con¬ 
gress met to considei- their mutual grievances 
against the British Crown. No permanent union 
Avas proposed, and the principle matter that occu¬ 
pied the attention of the delegates was the question 


THE CONGRESSES OB" 1774 AND 1775. 


33 


of what should be included in a list of grievances to 
be sent to the home government. 

3. THE CONGRESSES OF 1774 AND 1775. 

Again, in the Congress of 1774, there was a dispute 
in regard to what should be included in the petition 
to Parliament, which the colonists proposed to make, 
because of the unjust taxation, which the home 
government was attempting to inflict upon them. 
An agreement was readily reached, however, and 
the colonies were brought closer together through 
their common grievance and common remedy. 

In the Congress of 1775, still greater harmony pre¬ 
vailed among the several colonies than in the pre¬ 
vious year. In this Congress the vote was taken by 
colonies. The colonists were drawing closer, and 
closer together, as the oppression of England and 
the hatred of Parliament, consecxuent thereon, in¬ 
creased. 


3P A3RT II . 

COMBINATION, CONFEDERATION AND UNION 
( 1776 - 1789 ). 

SECTION I. 

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESSES OF 177G AND 1778. 

1. REFERENL 

Primary Sources;— The Federalist, 188-142; Fisk. • 
Critical Period of Aiiiericaii History, 17-8G, 105-113, 
1G3-17G, 179-218; Bancroft (Centenary Edition), 

V. 257-2G5, 345-353, VI. 25-35, 183-182, (Last Edition) 

VI. 59-8G, 13G-153, 1G7-17G, 182-185, 195-197, 198-437;' 
Frothin^hani. The Rise of the Republic, 153-157, 
198-248, 5G9-577, (Chapters I-IV are on the constitu¬ 
tional development of the colonial union); Hildreth, 
III. 50 5G, G5-G7, 395 403, 411-420, 430-437, 450-454, 482- 
52G; JelTerson’s Works, I. 2G-3G, 78-79, 40G-407, 413- 
414, 4G4-4G5, 518; Schouler. History of the United 
States, I. 14-17; Story. Commentaries on the Consti¬ 
tution, 1. 157-190; Von Holst. Constitutional History 



35 


THK COXaRKSS OF It'tG. 

of the United States, T. 19-4G; Von Holst. Constitn- 
tional Law, G-16. 

Secondary Sources; —Curtis. Constitutional His¬ 
tory, I. 104-114, 127-134, 186-220; McMaster. History of 
the United States, I. 130-138, 177-185, 223-226, 255-259, 
300-830, 389-390. 

2. THE COXGEES:^ OF 1776. 

The Congress of 1776 took the long meditated step 
of a Declaration of Independence of Cxreat Britain. 
From that day the English colonies on this conti¬ 
nent ceased to be known as the “United Colonies,’’ 
and were henceforth the “United States of America.” 

The question of the relation of these colonies after 
declaring themselves free from British rule is a long 
controverted one in American politics. Calhoun 
declared, that “the Declaration of independence 
changed the colonies from subjects of England to 
states, subject to no controlling power except their 
individual caprice.” Lincoln said: t “The Union 
gave each of them whatever of independence and 
liberty it has. The Union is older than any State, 
and in fact it created them as States.” There is 
little room for doubt as to hoAV the newly created 
States regarded their relation to the national gov¬ 
ernment. The old constitutions had been destroyed 
by the war, and in forming new ones, the States 


+ Message to congress, July 4, IHUI. 




8G 


THE CONGRESSES OF 1777 AND 1778. 


appealed to Congress for advice, and their new gov¬ 
ernments were formed under the direction of the 
national congress. 

3. THE CONGRESSES OE 1777 AND 1778. 

The Congress of 1776 had drafted the Articles of 
Confederation; but a discussion as to the man¬ 
ner of voting and assessment of taxes gave rise to 
much dissention so that the Articles were not 
adopted until November 1777. It was then decided 
to continue the previous method of voting; namely, 
l)y States. This had been the custom since 1775. 

Under this new instrument of government, great 
divergence of opinion and invidious contentions 
arose in regard to commerce, taxes, the foreign policy 
of the nation, and other matters relating to the op¬ 
eration of the central government; so that by 1787, 
when the Anna})olis convention, which intervened 
between the Alexandrian and the Philadelphia con¬ 
ventions, met, the country was almost in a state of 
anarchy, public credit was paralized, one State was 
imposing discriminating tariffs against another, and 
all were refusing to conqdy with the “ordinances” of 
Congress. In 1788 the Constitutional Convention 
met at Philadelphia. All agreed that something 
must be done, but few could concur on any given 
plan. 



THK PURPOSE OF ITS FOUNDERS. 


87 


SECTION II. 

THE CONFEDERATION (1778-1788). 

1. REFERENCES. 

Primary Sources: —Curtis. Constitutional His¬ 
tory, I. 98-103; Cyclopedia of Political Science, I. 574- 
577; Elliott. Debates, V. 112-113; Frothingham. Rise 
of the Republic, 569-577; Jefferson. Works, I. 26-38, 
58-62, 78-84; Von Holst. Constitutional History I. 19- 
30; Von Holst. Constitutional Law, 6-15. 

Secondary Sources:— Story. Commentaries on 
the Constitution, I. 157-163, 168-172; Federalist (Daw¬ 
son’s edition), 90-100; Fiske. Critical Period, 105-113, 
142-151, 167-178, 179-186, 208-213. 

2. THE NATURE OE THE GO VERNMENT. 

Under the Articles of Confederation the national 
legislative, executiv^e, and judicial powers were all 
located in a single assembly, the federal Congress. 
The approval of nine States was necessary to the 
passage of all important measures. Amendments 
could only be made by the consent of the legislatures 
of all the States. Congress was recognized in Europe 
as the proper source of national authority; but taxes 
could only be levied by the State legislatures. 

3. THE P UR FOSE OE ITS FO UNDERS. 

On the same day that the committee was appointed 
to draft the Declaration of Indeiiendence, a com- 


B8 


THE SEAT OF SOVEREIGXTA. 


iiiittee was appointed to draft Articles of Confedera-' 
tion. It was the intention of Congress to form a 
central government with powers adecpiate to admin¬ 
ister the affairs of the new nation. But as soon as 
the committee reported, on July 13, 1776, a dispute 
arose in regard to the method of voting. The 
smaller States feared the power and influence of the 
larger Avould be used to dominate the legislation of 
Congress, to the injury of the former. 

The result was a compromise, but at no time was 
the idea of forming a national government aban¬ 
doned. 

4. TJfJJ S'/:A T OF S'O VFJ/FIOXTV. 

Although the condition of the countr)", under the 
Articles of Confederation, was deplorable, yet the 
lack of power on the part of national government 
was not due to the want of sovereignty vested thei e, 
but to the restricted powers granted to Congress, 
the poverty of the Grovernment, and the rivalries 
existing between the several States. 

The sovereignty rested in the national government. 
The people of the colonies had united for the pur¬ 
pose of defending themselves from the aggression of 
England, and they had, in the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence, expressly declared themselves to be one 
l)eople, and confirmed that action by adopting an 
instrument of national government, which though 


THE SEAT OF SOVEREIGXTY. 


39 


deficient in many of its details, was still a repository 
of federal authority, and the suiireme law of the 
land. They had made the bonds of national unity 
still more firm, l)y making the unanimous consent of 
all the Sates necessary to the amendment of the 
Articles of Confederation. 

SECTION III. 

THE COXSTITUTIOXAL COXYENTIOX AXl) RATIFICA¬ 
TION' RY THE STATES (1787-1789). 

1. JU:FJUiEXCJ]S. 

Primary Sources:— Elliot’s Debates, I., II., 
III., IV.; and V., Greeley. The American Conflict, 
I. 43-49; Fiske. The Critical Period in American 
History, 133-150, 211-344: The works of Hamilton, 
Jefferson, Madison and Washington; Von Holst. 
Constitutional History of the United States, I. 47-63 ; 
Bancroft. History of the Constitution, I. 267-268, II. 
1-47, 114-350; Bancroft. History of the United States 
(Last Edition), VI. 195-462; Curtis. Constitutional 
History of the United States, chapters XV. to XXX- 
VI. inclusive; Curtis. History of the Constitution, II. 
232-604. 

Secondary Sources: —Hildreth. History of the 
United States, III. 482-546; McMaster. History of the 
Fnited States, 1. 416-524; Pitkin, II. 218-316; Lodge’s 
Hamilton; Tyler s Patrick Henry; Wilson. Rise and 


40 


THE XEW JERSEY PLAX. 


Fall of the Slave Power in America, I. 40-5(). 

3. THE VIEGINIA PLAN. 

On the convening of the Constitutional Convention 
at Philadelphia, several plans for a new instrument 
of government were proposed. One of the Virginia 
representatives presented what is known as the Vir¬ 
ginia Plan. This scheme proposed a national 
Legislature, which should have i)Ower to legislate in 
all cases where the separate States are incompetent, 
“To negative all laws passed by the several States, 
controvening the Articles of Union, and to call forth 
the forces of the Union against any member of the 
Union, failing to fulfill its duty under the Articles 
thereof.’’ 

3. THE NE\V JERSEY PLAN. 

The New Jersey Plan proposed that t “All acts of 
the United States in Congress shall be the supreme 
law of the States. In case of opposition from any 
State, or any body of men in any State, toward such 
Acts or Treaties, the Federal Executive shall be au¬ 
thorized to call forth the power of the States to en¬ 
force obedience.” New Jersey, as the advocate of 
the smaller States, which objected to the preponder¬ 
ance of power being held by the larger States, pro¬ 
posed that the national Legislature consist of one 

t Bancroft. Illstorj" of the Constitution. 
t Elliot’s Debates, v. loi. 



OTHER COMPROMISES. 


41 


House, in which all States should be equally repre¬ 
sented. 

4. THE CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE. 

As the debate on this proposition wore on, the con¬ 
flict between the larger and the smaller States be¬ 
came very intense. Finally Connecticut came for¬ 
ward with a compromise measure, t She proposed 
that the National Legislature consist of two Houses, 
in one of which all the States should be equally 
represented, and in the other they should be repre¬ 
sented according to population. After a long and 
severe struggle the compromise was accexjted. 

5. OTHER COMPROMISES. 

The next great struggle in the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention was over the basis of representation in Con¬ 
gress. It was finally decided by a conqDroniise that 
three-fifths of the negroes should be counted, both 
in the aiiportionment of representation and of direct 
taxes. New England was interested in shipiiing, the 
South in agriculture and the Slave Trade. A third 
conqiromise gave to Congress the jiower of jiassing 
navigation Acts, but forbade it to prohibit the Slave 
Trade for twenty years. The debate over these ques¬ 
tions was very fervid, and more than once the con¬ 
vention was on the xioint of dissolution. 

t Ibid. 



42 


OTHER COMPROMISES. 


Tiie great question, which was destined to engage 
the attention of public men, and be the pivotal 
point, around which all other questions should ar¬ 
range themselves, during the succeeding seventy 
years of xVmerican history, was whether or not, under 
this instrument of government, which was then being 
constructed, the several States were to be sovereign 
within their own limits, or whether a part of the 
sovereign authority was to be deposited in the na¬ 
tional Grovemment ; and whether or not the Federal 
Powers should have the right to exercise force, to 
compel obedience to their authority. On these points 
the Constitution is ominously silent. 

The cpiestion came up in the convention, but it was 
obvious to all that no Constitution could be adopted, 
if such a vexed prolilem should be allowed to inter¬ 
rupt the deliberations of that body; so that most 
puzzling iiolitical enigma was left for posterity to de¬ 
termine and settle forever, amid the eloquent ora- 
tund of reverberating ordinance, in the great forum 
of the field of battle. 

Hart says: t “No sooner had debate actually begun 
than the Convention proved to l)e divided into many 
factions. Some mendiers, like Patterson, were on 
l)rincipal opposed to a strong government; others, 
like Hamilton, desired to break down the State’s 
houndaries, and to create a centralized Republic. 

1 EpocEs ot American History. II. 123. 


THE RATIFICATION CONVENTION. 


48 


Still more distinct was the opposition between the 
large States and the small; the former inclined to a 
representation based on population; the latter in¬ 
sisted that the States should be equal units. Again, 
the trading States—New England, New York, and 
Maryland—were inclined to grant large powers over 
commerce; the agricultural States, particularly Vir¬ 
ginia, wished to see commerce regulated still by the 
States in part. Another line of division was between 
the Slave-holding and Non-Slave-holding States; 
here the champions were Massachusetts on one side 
and South Carolina on the other. Throughout the 
Convention these various elements combined and re¬ 
combined as their interests seemed affected. Al¬ 
though there were no permanent parties,the members 
of which regularly voted together, there was disa¬ 
greement and disappoinrnient from beginning to 
end.” 

6. THE EA TIFICA TION CON VENTION 

In ratifying the Constitution the jealousies among 
the States were shown very conspicuously. It was 
the event of this contest that called forth the most 
comprehensive and excellent commentary on the 
Constitution that has ever been written, the Feder¬ 
alist, the component product of the sagacity and 
genius of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay; the two 
former being credited with having produced the 


44 


THE RATIFICATION CONVENTION. 


greater part of this series of articles, Avhich appeared 
in a periodical i)ublication bearing the above name. 

In many of the States the Constitution was adojited 
by a very small majority, only after a long and fierce 
struggle. Patrick Henr^^, the great orator of the 
Revolution, appeared in the Ratification Convention 
of his native State, Virginia, and spent all the force 
of his powerful influence and burning eloquence in 
opposition to the proposed Constitution, but to no 
purj^ose. Virginia ratified, though she did so very re¬ 
luctantly. A number of the members of the Consti¬ 
tutional Convention had left that body and returned 
home before it had completed its labors, either be¬ 
cause they objected to the kind of government that 
was being constructed for the new nation, or be¬ 
cause they thought that nine States could not be ob¬ 
tained to adopt it after it was completed. These 
men now used their influence in the several States to 
secure its defeat. 

IS'ew York was the eleventh State to ratify. She 
was one of the larger States, and as her location was 
central, she was considered necessary to the success 
of the Union. On the other hand. New York was 
an empire in herself, and many thought that she 
might retain her sovereignty and remain an inde¬ 
pendent nation. The campaign here was the most 
exciting of all the contests in the several States; but 
at last, by a small majority, she adopted the Const!- 


THE RATIFICATION CONVENTION. 


45 


tutioii, and thus insured the success of the Anierican 
Union, and secured for herself all those vast advan¬ 
tages, which have made her sea-port city the com¬ 
mercial emporium of the New World, and given her 
the justly enviable title of the “Empire State.'’ 

After the decision of the contest in New York, the 
organization of the National Grovernment was im¬ 
mediately proceeded with. The condition of North 
Carolina and Rhode Island was peculiar. They alone 
remained out of the Union, which was to take effect 
as soon as nine States had ratified the Constitution. 
Under the Articles of Confederation, which were not 
to be amended, except by unanimous consent, they 
had a legal right to insist that the new government 
w^as unconstitutional, and that the Confederation 
still continued in force. These States did not enter 
the Union until about a year had elapsed, and the 
Federal CTOvernment had been organized. 

During this period, where did the seat of sover¬ 
eignty reside as regards these two States? This is a 
(question that has perplexed many loyal friends of 
the Union. Perhaps the best solution of the prob¬ 
lem is to regard the organization of the Federal 
Government under the new Constitution, before it 
had been ratified by all the States, as a revolution¬ 
ary act. The Articles of Confedaration were legally 
in force, as the rightful instrument of government, 
until it had been revoked by the action of all the 


40 


WAS THE COXSTITUTIOX A COMPACT? 


States, which were parties to it. Therefore, Avhen 
these States finally adoified the Constitution of the 
United States and catne into the Union, that Consti¬ 
tution first became legally the instrunient of govern¬ 
ment of this nation. And although the Govern¬ 
ment had been organized before they became a part 
of the nation, still their action in ratifying the Con¬ 
stitution and coming into the Union at that time was 
equivalent to a formal act, legalizing all previous 
transactions of the Federal Government, since by 
their acceptance of the existing conditions, they 
waived the right to object to anything that had been 
previously done, t 

7. WAS THE CONST[TUITON A COMPACT! 

In regard to whether or not the Constitution was in¬ 
tended to be “a compact,” merely, there seems to be 
little room for doubt. The Confederation was a com¬ 
pact, and not a perfect instrument of federal govern¬ 
ment, and it was for this very reason that the Conven¬ 
tion of 1787 was called, and the Federal Constitution 
framed. The members of that Convention did not 
consider it a “compact,” for on May 30, 1787, they 
voted; “No treaty or treaties among the whole, or 
part of the States, as separate sovereignties, would 
be sufficient.” The x>i’hicipal ground of ox)position 

t Bryce. Tlie American Commonwealth I. 310-820, 

870, 408-409. 



WAS THE CONSTlTUTIOJs A COMPACT ? 


47 


to the ratification of the Constitution was the fact 
that when once adopted by the States, their action 
could never be revoked. + 

t Elliott. Debates in tbe Constitutional Convention, 
and in tbe Ratiflcation Conventions of several of tbe 
States. 



3P A 3R X III’. 

THE NATIONAL PERIOD. 

SECTION I. 

The doctrine of limited powers (1780-1199.) 

1. RF.FEBEXCES. 

Primary Sources:— Elliott's Debates, IV.; HamiL 
ton’s Works, IV.; Jefferson’s AVorks, III.; Madison’s 
AVorks; A^on Holst. Constitutional History of the 
United States, I. 82-97; AVasliinj^^ton’s AVorks. 

Secondary Sources: —Hildreth. History of the 
United States, lA’^. 25-210; McAIaster. History of the 
United States, I.; Pitkin, II. 317-355; Schouler. His¬ 
tory of the United States, I. 74-220. 

2. TJfE ASSUMFTION OF ETATE FEBTE. 

Dissention between the States and jealousies of 
tbe National Governnient sprang up in Congress at 
the very first. A spirited opposition was met with 
In organizing the Executive and Judiciary Depart- 


THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS. 


49 


merits ; but the Assumption of State Debts and fixinj^ 
the place of the national capital were the subjects 
that caused the sharpest contest, t “ Disputes rela¬ 
tive to the permanent seat of government ran high 
in Congress. After repeated trials, the decision was 
sometimes in favor of removing to Philadelphia, and 
sometimes in favor of remaining at New York. It 
was finally carried in favor of Philadelphia by a 
very small majority. Kentucky, it was foreseen, 
would soon be admitted into the Federal Union ; and 
Virginia, to whose territory it belonged, with great 
dignity and honor, was aiming to promote the 
event. The representation of the Eastern States 
was diminished of its just proportion by the exclusion 
of Vermont, and this had already proved to the dis¬ 
advantage of New York. If their old controversy 
could be settled, it was apparent that the interests 
and the influence of these States would, in almost 
every instance, coincide. Public sentiment called 
loudly for this measure.” + Hildreth states in re¬ 
gard to the subject of the Assumption of State Debts: 
“ Political considerations had also operated. The 
vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of 
government at New York. At all events that State 
would serve as a counter-balance to Kentucky, the 

t Williams. History of Vermont, 302. 

t Hildreta. History of the United States, (second series) I. 

268. 




50 


THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS. 


speedy admission of which was foreseen.” t “ It was 
evident that the friends of Assumption were in a 
small minority, and the friends of a Northern capi¬ 
tal were in a small majority. Hamilton worked upon 
.Jefferson to secure a compromise. The matter was 
adjusted at Jefferson’s table : a few Northern votes 
Avere obtained for a Southern capital, and two Vir¬ 
ginia members agreed toAmte for Assumption.” Jef¬ 
ferson AAU'ote to Washington : + “ The OAvners of the 
debt are in the Southern and the holders in the 
Northern division.” 1| “The \Adiole compromise Avas 
a bargain betAveen the North and the South. * * * 
The friends of Hamilton’s financial policy Avere so 
preponderantly from the Northern States and its op¬ 
ponents from the Southern, that the geographical 
and sectional character of the parties A\ms a matter 
of frequent mention and lament.” 

“ The difference was due to: (1) difference in eco¬ 
nomic situation; (2) financial questions; (3) difference 
in political thought in general.” Jefferson in reAueAV- 
ing the conflict says : § “ So high Avere the feuds 
excited by this subject that on its rejection, business 
Avas suspended. Congress met from day to day with 
out doing anything. * * The Eastern members par- 

t Hart. Epochs of American History, 11. 149. 

t .Tefferson’s Works, III. :I63. 

11 Von Holst. Constitutional and Political History of the 
United States, I. 86. 

§ Jefferson’s Works, IX. 93. 





PETITION OF QUAKERS AND WHISKY REBELLION. 51 


ticularly ^ * who were the principal gamblers 

in these scenes, threatened Secession and dissolu¬ 
tion.” 

3. THE PETITION OF THE Q, UAKERS AND 
THE WHISKY REBELLION. 

The first petition for the abolition of Slavery was 
presented to Congress in 1790, by the Quakers of the 
State of Pennsylvania. Congress refused to con¬ 
sider the subject, but it occasioned some expressions 
of disloyalty, on the part of the Southern politi¬ 
cians. Even a few threats of disunion were heard in 
Congress itself, thus early in the history of the new 
nation. The discussion of the question of a National 
Bank, and the presidential appointments at this time 
also caused some talk of disunion. 

The Whisky Rebellion in 1794 was not exactly an 
assertion of the principle of State Sovereignty, but 
rather, the rebellion of three counties in Pennsyl¬ 
vania against the enforcement of a Federal statute. 
It was quickly suppressed, and thus further spread 
of opposition was averted, and the question of the 
right of a State, or a part of a State, or of one sec¬ 
tion of the country, to nullify the action of the gen¬ 
eral government was reserved to a future time for 
settlement. 


52 THE YIRGIXIA AAD KEA'TUCKY RESOLUTIOA^S. 


SECTION II. 

THE DOCTRIA'E OF THE RIGHT OF “PROTEST” (1799- 

1820). 

1 . nEFEBENCES. 

Primary Sources.— Elliott’s Debates, IV. 528-580, 
o70-380; Hildreth. History of the United States, III. 
544-554; JelTerson’s Works; Madison’s Works; Von- 
holst. Political and Constitutional History of the 
United States, I. 70-80, 95-149, 243-260. 

Secoahiary Sources: —Hart. Epochs of American 
History, II. 170, 195-220; McMaster. History of the 
United States, II. 536-635; Schouler. History of the 
United States, II. 1-194. 

THE VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLU¬ 
TIONS (1798-1799). 

In 1797-1798 the Federalist Party was in power, 
and because of .the strained relations with France, 
the })revalence of foreigners in the country, and 
their unfriendly attitude toward the administration, 
the Alien and Sedition Laws were passed. Immedi¬ 
ately there was a great cry that tyranny Avas being 
exercised over the nation by the President and his 
])arty. The Anti-Federalists declared that the Na¬ 
tional Grovennent would overstep its prescribed 
bounds, and become a monarchy, if these evil tend¬ 
encies were not at once arrested. Accordingly, 


THE VIRGHXIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS. 53 


James Madison prepared a set of resolutions, which 
were passed by the Virginia Legislature in 1799, and 
sent to the legislatures of the other States for their 
concurrence. 

The resolutions declared the Federal Union to be a, 
“compact to Avhich the States are parties,” but af¬ 
firmed the allegiance of Virginia to the Union. The 
Assembly further declared that they viewed the 
powers of the general government as: t “Limited 
by the plain sense and intention of the instrument 
constituting that compact, as no further valid than 
they are authorized by the grants enumerated in the 
compact ; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, 
and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted 
by said compact, the States who are iiarties thereto, 
have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose 
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for main¬ 
taining within their respective limits, the authori¬ 
ties, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.” 

About the same time the legislature of Kentucky 
passed resolutions to the following effect: “That 
* * * the several States, who formed that instru¬ 
ment (the Constitution of the United States), being 
sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable 
right to judge of the infraction ; and that a nullifica¬ 
tion by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, 
done under color of that instrument, is the rightful 
t Elliott’s Debates, IV. 528-580. 



54 THE REPLIES OP THE OTHER STATES. 

remedy.” The Kentucky Resolutions were prepared 
by Jefferson, and were very similar in spirit to those 
passed by the legislature of Virginia. In these reso¬ 
lutions, the theory that the federal government is a 
“compact” was for the first time clearly stated. 

The repeal of the Alien and Sedition Laws with¬ 
drew the cause of the controversy, so that it was 
never determined what was meant by the, “right of 
protest.” Madison, in an elaborate report to Con¬ 
gress t said, that the “protest” of Virginia meant 
only the right to resort to constitutional means, and 
not to force, that is : amendment of the Constitu¬ 
tion ; instructing senators ; appealing to Congress ; 
influencing public sentiment, etc. 

3. THE REPLIES OE THE OTHER STATES. 

Copies of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 
were sent to all the other States, for their approval, 
but they met with little sympathy. In most of the 
New England States they were severely condemned; 
in some they were ignored entirely. X No other 
State approved of the full course of their action. It 
was to these Virginia and Kentucy Resolutions that 
Calhoun in 1^12, and the Southern leaders in 1860, 
appealed for confirmation and support. 


t Elliott’s Debates, IV. 5i28-580. 
t Ibid. 




THE EMBARGO ACT. 


55 


4. THE LO UESIANA PIJRCHASE. 

Ill 1803 the purchase of Louisiana aroused a furor 
in the Eastern States, because they were to be de- 
priv^ed of a part of the influence which they were ac¬ 
customed to wield; and because the Federalists 
thought the method of annexation unconstitutional. 
But the Republican measures carried, and, with a 
few threats of disunion, and the Burr conspiracy, 
the country again settled into tranquility ; but a 
tranquility which was to last for a few years only. 

5. THE EMBARGO ACT (1808). 

In 1808 the Embargo Act was passed as a retali¬ 
ation on the British government for the “Chesa¬ 
peake Affair,” and to protect American shipping. 
It proved to be of more damage to American com¬ 
merce, than to either British or French interests; and 
was very odious, especially to the commercial people 
of the New England States. 

This Act served to stir up bitter sectional jealousy. 
A Southern senator said: “The excitement in the 
East renders it necessary that we should enforce the 
Embargo Act with a bayonet, or repeal it.” Adams 
resigned his seat in the Senate, and informed the 
President that, unless the Embargo Act was repealed. 
New England would withdraw from the Union. The 
political revolution in 1809 changed the representa¬ 
tion in Congress, and the Embargo Act was re- 


5G THE HARTFORD CONVEXTION. 

pealed; the Non-Intercourse Act being substituted 
in its place. 

G. THE IIAI^TFOBD CONVENTION 

In 1813 the sentiment of opposition to the war 
with England ran high in the East, and an unlawful 
trade sprang up between the New England shores 
and the British ships. A new Embargo Act Avas 
passed by Congress, which ga\"e still more dis¬ 
pleasure to the New England States. The increas¬ 
ing demands of England, and the c.onseciuent rise of 
the war spirit of the Republican leaders, led them to 
adopt measures hardly in conformity Avith their 
Strict-Construction policy. 

It was proposed to increase the army by draft, or 
conscription, and eA^en the English system of im¬ 
pressment of seamen was suggested by the Secretary 
of the NaA^y. A Bill in the Senate provided for the 
enlistment of minors over eighteen years of age, 
without the consent of their parents, or guardians. 
In October, Massachusetts, on account of commer¬ 
cial distress in the East, and from fear of an attack 
by the English, who now occupied a part of the dis¬ 
trict of Maine, and against aaIioiii the Federal goA^- 
ernment had neglected to oppose any adequate 
means of resistance, iiiAuted the other NeAv England 
States to send delegates to Hartford, Connecticut, 
‘‘to confer on the subject of their public grievances.” 


THE HARTFORD CONVENTION. 


On December 15th, 1814, delegates from Massachu¬ 
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and from portions 
of Vermont and New Hampshire assembled at Hart¬ 
ford. 

The Convention remained three weeks in secret 
session, and on adjournment, published a report of 
its proceedings. From this report it appeared that 
the Convention had declared that the Constitution 
had been violated, and that : t “ States which have 
no common umpire must be their own judges, and 
execute their own decisions.” They advised the call¬ 
ing of another convention, “in order to decide on 
the course which the crisis so momentous might 
seem to demand.” They also advised the following 
amendments to the Constitution: J that representa¬ 
tion should be based on the whole number of free in¬ 
habitants; that the President be ineligible for a 
second term of office; that foreigners be dis- 
(pialified from holding office ; that an Embargo Act 
be limited to sixty days in duration ; that a two- 
thirds vote be required in Congress for the admis¬ 
sion of new States, to interdict commercial inter¬ 
course, and to declare war. 

The treaty of peace signed at Gfhent, Decemberthe 
24th, 1814, removed the necessity for enforcing their 
ultimatum, which they had not distinctly stated, but 

t Hart. Epochs of American History. II. 217. 

t Hildreth. History of the United States. III. 544-554. 





58 


THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 


whicli they had obviously implfed ; namely, that they 
should be allowed to retain the proceeds of national 
customs and duties, collected within their borders, 
or they would withdraw from the Union. 

The Hartford Convention resulted in nothing more 
serious at the time, than to work the political ruin 
of its members ; but the dangerous suggestion of 
sectional combination and the right to inhibit the 
action of the Federal Government, bore bitter 
fruit at a later date. 

SECTION III. 

THE DOCTRINE OF SECTIONAL DIVISION (1820-1830). 

1. J^EFEBENC EE 

Primary Sources:— Blaine. Twenty Years in Con¬ 
gress, I. 154-158 ; Calhoun’s Works (see subject) ; 
Draper. The Civil War, I. 625-G30, V. 14-25; Von- 
Holst. Constitutional and Political History of the 
United States, II. 60-75. 

Secondary Sources:— Hart. Epochs of American 
History, 151-152, 170, 245-260, 236-241, 216, 260-270; 
Johnston. American Politics, 100-125. 

2. TJIE 3IIESO UBI C03IBB03IIjSE (1S20). 

The Slavery cpiestion had appeared to disturb the 
deliberations of the Fathers of the Constitution, and 
had again appeared to disturb the peace of Congress 
in 1793. And though silent for a long time now, it 


THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 


59 


was still the great question that divided the Union. 
From 1815 to 1820, the country had been busy with 
its commercial and political improvement, and so 
the Slavery Question had for a time dropped out of 
sight. But out of this superficial tranquility, the 
old, vexed question suddenly sounded its bodeful 
discord, as Jefferson said: “like a fire-bell in the 
night.” 

The expanse of territory, embraced in the Louisi¬ 
ana Purchase was fast becoming settled, and Slavery 
was pushing north in the Mississippi Valley. 
In 1818 the House passed the Tahiiadge Amendment 
to the Bill for the admission of Missouri as a State, 
which Bill provided that, “the further introduction 
of Slavery, or involuntary servitude be prohibited, 

* * * and that all children of slaves, born within 

the State, after the admission thereof into the Union 
shall be free.” The Senate rejected the Amend¬ 
ment, and Congress adjourned. 

During the year 1819, this subject was the main 
topic of political discussion, throughout the Union. 
In the next Congress, a Bill for the admission of 
Maine was introduced, and also a Bill for the admis¬ 
sion of Missouri with the Tahiiadge Amendment. 
The Senate refused to admit Maine, unless Mis¬ 
souri should be admitted as a Slave State. The 
House was stubborn in its demand that Missouri 
should be admitted a Free State. Finally an adjust- 


(JO 


THE TARIFF OF 1824. 


nient was reached, by which it was agreed that a 
line should be drawn across the Louisiana Purchase, 
north of which Slavery sliould be prohibited. The 
parallel 36^ 30' was agreed upon as the line 
of demarcation between the Slave and Free terri¬ 
tory. The next year another controversy arose 
over the fact that free colored men were prohibited 
from Missouri territory by her Constitution. A 
compromise, effected by Clay, resulted in Missouri’s 
agreeing not to deprive any citizen of another 
State of his rights within the borders of that 
State. 

During these debates, much hatred t was excited, 
and threats of disunion were freely made by the 
South. Calhoun told Adams that, if the trouble 
produced a dissolution of the Union, “ the South 
would be from necessity, compelled to form an alli¬ 
ance, offensive and defensive, with Great Brit¬ 
ain.” t 

3. TJI/J TARIFF OF 1824. 

Th(i tariff of 1824 was demanded by New England, 
to protect her growing commercial interests. It 
was passed by a combination of New England 
with Western votes, against the strong opposition 
of the whole South. Randolph of Virginia de- 

1 Blaine. Twenty Years in Congress, I. 154-158. 
t Draper. The Civil War, I 625-630. 




THE CHEROKEE CONTROVERSY. 61 

dared : t “ There never was a constitution under 
the sun, in which, by an unwise exercise of powers 
of government, the people may not be driven to 
the extremity of resistance by force.” The indus¬ 
trial and commercial conditions in the North and 
the South were begining to exhibit the disparity 
of interests and divergence of sentiment which was 
being created between the two sections of the 
Nation by the baneful influence of the Slave Sys¬ 
tem. 

4. THE CHEROKEE CONTROVERSY. 

Georgia in 1835 attempted to drive the Cherokee 
Indians from their reservations in that State. The 
Indians held their lands by virtue of a treaty with 
the United States ; but, owing to a hostile faction, 
the President was powerless to defend them. After 
a sharp controversy with Georgia, during which 
the State militia was called out to resist the Na¬ 
tional forces, the President was obliged to yield, 
on account of the attitude of Congress on the ques¬ 
tion. 

5. THE TARIEF OF 1838. 

This tariff was very objectionable to the South, 
as was that of 1834. It was now seen that New 
England had settled down to a steady policy of pro¬ 
tection to her industries, by the imposition of a high 


t Hart. Epoclis of American History, II. 240. 




62 


THE TARIFF OF 1828. 


tariff on iiuports. Calhoun issued that document, 
which has since become famous as the South Caro¬ 
lina Exposition, in which he showed the initpiity of 
the tariff, and advised the holding of a convention, 
which should decide how the Act should be, 
“Declared null and void within the limits of the 
state.-’ 

Among other doctrines expressed in this Exposi¬ 
tion were these : “The Gleneral Government is one 
of specific powers, and it can rightfully exercise only 
the powers expressly granted, and those that may 
be necessary and proper to carry them into effect, 
all others being expressly reserved to the States or 
the people. It results necessarily that those who 
claim to exercise power under the Constitution are 
bound to show that it is expressly granted, or that 
it is necessary and proper as a means to some of 
the granted powers.” And further: “Our system 
of government consists of two distinct and inde¬ 
pendent governments, the General Government and 
the State governments. The separate governments 
of the several States are vested in their Legislative, 
Executive, and Judicial Depa rtment^ while the sov¬ 
ereignty resides in the people of the several States, 
who created it. * * * Not the least jjortion of this 
high sovereign authority resides in Congress^ or any 
other of the departments of the General Government.''"' 
t Callioun’s Works, VI. 55. 



THE GREAT DEBATE. 


03 


Accordingly, he argues that, to refer all controversies 
between a State and the Gieneral Government to the 
Supreme Court would be to, t ‘'divest the people of 
the State of their sovereign authority, and clothe 
that tribunal with the robe of supreme power.” 

After quoting from the Virginia and Kentucky 
Resolutions, Mr. Calhoun further states: “That 
there exists a case which would justify the interposi¬ 
tion of this State, in order to compel the General 
Government to abandon an unconstitutional power, 
or to appeal to this high authority to confer it by 
express grant, the committee do not in the least 
doubt; and they are equally clear in regard to the 
necessity of its exercise, if the General Government 
should continue to persist in its improper assump¬ 
tion of powers, belonging to the State.” 

The Legislature of South Carolina, through their 
representation in the Federal legislature, made a 
formal protest against the tariff. 

C. THE GEE A T DEB A TE. 

In 1828, Foot of Connecticut introduced in Con¬ 
gress a resolution, providing for the restriction of 
the sales of public land, which was being carried on 
at that time. This resolution precipitated one of the 
most celebi'ated debates in the Nineteenth Century. 
Hayne of South Carolina, in discussing the measure, 

t Callioiin’s Works, VI. 55. 



G4 


THE NULLimCATION ORDINANCE. 


gave utterance, for the first time on the floor of Con¬ 
gress, to the Doctrine of Nullification. He was 
answered by Webster of Massachusetts, in what was 
without doubt the most masterful piece or oratory 
of the age. His defense of the Constitution wa^ 
complete and victorious, and his pathetic peroration 
and exordium to sentiments of loyalty and union was 
a sublime tribute to that great palladium of Ameri¬ 
can Liberty. 

SECTION IV. 

NULLIFICATION (1830-1832). 

1. IIEFJUIENCES. 

Primary Sources Calhoun’s Works (see sub¬ 
ject in last volume); Congressional Annals (under 
proper dates) ; Von Holst. Political and Constitu¬ 
tional History of the United States, II. 60-75. 

Secondary Sources Johnston. American Poli¬ 
tics ; Woodrow Wilson. Epochs of American His¬ 
tory, II. 260-270. 

2. TJIE NULLIEICATION OBDINANCE. 

In 1832 a new Tariff Bill was passed, which low¬ 
ered the rates, but still maintained the protective 
principle. Immediately South Carolina, objecting 
as much to the system as to the specific rates of the 
previous Bill, called a Convention, and declared the 
Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 null and void, within the 


JACKSON’S NULLIFICATION PROCLAMATION. 05 


borders of that State. She immediately called for a 
thousand stand of arms, and be^i^an to make other 
preparations to maintain her position by force. 

Webster wrote Chancellor Kent, the great Ameri¬ 
can Commentator ; t ‘'Seeing, as I think I do, that 
the affairs of this government are fast approaching 
a crisis, I have felt it my duty to answer Mr. 
Calhoun.” Chief-Justice Dagget of Connecticut 
wrote; t “I never felt such fearful forebodings as I 
now feel;” yet he had witnessed all the momentous 
scenes of the Revolution, and the trying ordeals of 
the “Critical Period,” as Fiske denominates the in¬ 
terval, occuring between the close of the War of 
Independence and the adoption of the Federal Con¬ 
stitution. 

3. JACKSON'S NULLIFICATION PROCLA¬ 
MATION. 

Jackson, who was President, at once issued a 
proclamation, declaring that the laws should be en¬ 
forced, and instructed the Collector of the Port of 
Charleston to collect the revenues, if necessary, by 
force. Two war ships were ordered to Charleston, 
and troops were mobilized by the Federal Authori¬ 
ties on the borders of South Carolina. 

The President, in the Proclamation, had declared: 

t The Green Bag, April, 1895,192. 
t Ibid. 




GG 


THE COMPROMISE TARIFF OF 1833. 


t “I consider the power to annul a law of the United 
States, assumed by one State, incompatible with 
the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly 
by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by 
its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which 
it was founded, and destructive of the great object 
for which it was formed;” and his subsequent acts 
showed that he was ready to put his convictions 
into execution. 

4. THE COMFEOMISE TAFIEF OF 1833. 

Both parties had gone farther than they had in¬ 
tended. The protectionists saw that their high 
rates could not be endured by the South at that 
time, and the Nullifiers saw that they would be met 
by the full force of the Federal power, if they at¬ 
tempted to interfere with the execution of the na¬ 
tional laws. In accordance with the request of 
Jackson, a measure was introduced in Congress, 
providing for the enforcement of the tariff Acts. 

Clay liow came forward with a compromise tariff 
measure, which, in 1833, Avas accepted. The “Force 
Bill,” as the compromise Act Avas named, Avas passed 
a feAv months later. South Carolina re assembled 
her Convention, and reiiealed her “Nulliftcation Or¬ 
dinance,” but declared the Enforcement Act null and 

t Sumner’s Andrew Jackson, in tlie American Statesmen 
Series, 383. 





THE COMPROMISE TARIFE OF 183B. 


07 


of no effect. 

Neither party was entirely satisfied with the result, 
although both claimed a vuctory. Had Jackson been 
as firm with Georgia, in regard to the Indian troub* 
les, South Carolina probably would never have been 
led to take the step she did. And even had he re¬ 
fused to sign the compromise tariff Act, until the 
State of South Carolina had been forced to submit to 
the Federal Government, the great question, the 
settlement of which subsequently cost the lives of a 
million men, might have been decided then, at a 
comparatively trifling expense. But the President 
deserves the highest honor for the bold stand he 
took, and for the loyal spirit of his timely j)roclama- 
tion. 

During this controversy, Calhoun had been busy, 
elucidating the doctrines of his pet theory. He de¬ 
clared the essential difference between “Nullification” 
and “Secession” to be this: “Secession is a with¬ 
drawal from the Union, * * * a dissolution of the 

partnership;” while, “Nullification,” on the contrary, 
“presupi)Oses the relation of principal and agent, * 

* * and is simply a declaration, * * * that an 

act of the agent, transcending his powers, is null and 
void.” t 

t Calhoun’s Works, VI. (Letter to James Hamilton, 
August 28, 18S2). 


08 


DIVISION. 


SECTION V. 

SLAVERY AND DISUNION^ (1833-1860). 

1. BEFEIiENCF.S. 

Primary Sources;— Epochs of x4merican History, 
III. 165 ; Blaine. Twenty years in Congress ; Von 
Holst. Constitutional and Political History, 1850- 
1854, 50; New York Tribune, May 13, 1851; John¬ 
ston. American Politics, 168; Cyclopaedia of Political 
Science, II. 315-317, III. 162-163. 

2. DIVISION. 

From 1833 to 1850, the lines of division in sentiment 
and interests, between the two opposing sections of 
the country, remained practically the same; but the 
subject of contention was changed, though the fun¬ 
damental cause of both could be very clearly seen to 
originate from the same ultimate source. Slavery 
was at the root of the evil. It was the Slave System 
•that was responsible, in a great measure, for the 
dearth of manufactures in the South, which in turn 
caused her opposition to the protective tariff. The 
Slave System required more room in which to ex¬ 
pand, in order to retain its parity of power with the 
North, in the Federal Government; hence it was this 
evil that caused all the contentions over the annexa¬ 
tion of territory, the organization of the Territorial 
governments and the admission of new States. 



THE ADMISSION OF TEXAS. 


69 


;3. THE AD MIEETON OF TEXAS. 

In 1843, the question of the admission of Texas as 
a State, had called forth many declarations of dis¬ 
loyalty, and t “Texas or Disunion” was the cry of 
the more radical of the Southern leaders. In the 
same year, John Quincy Adams, Ex-President of the 
United States, and a Massachusetts Statesman, was 
supported by a iiortion of the Northern Whigs in the 
declaration that the Annexation of Texas would 
justify the dissolution of the Union. 

Again in 1845, William Lloyd Grarrison proposed to 
an Anti-Annexation Convention in Boston, that 
Massachusetts should lead in a movement for Dis¬ 
union; and the loyal men of New England loudly ap¬ 
plauded the doctrine, which in less than twenty 
years they were to give their lives and property to 
eradicate forever from the breast of every true 
American, by means of the awful surgery of the bul¬ 
let and the sword. Such are the inconsistencies of 
history, and such the mutations of public opinion, 
and the caprice of human sentiment and passion. 

4. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

From 1840 to 1850, the North, stimulated by the 
progress of invention and the vast stream of immi¬ 
gration that was pouring upon her shores and set- 


/ 


t Woodrow Wilson. Epochs of American History, HI. 
16 .). 






TO 


THK COMPROMISE OP 1850. 


tling in her cities, had been rapidly developing; 
while the South had vainly striven to keep pace 
with her rival. 

In 1849, the immediate subject of contention, be¬ 
tween the two sections, was the Territories; whether 
they should be Slave or Free. Great excitement 
prevailed; and when Congress met in December, 
three weeks were spent in organizing the House, so 
nice was the equipoise of parties. In January of 
the following year, Clay presented in Congress the 
famous compromise measure, knowm as the Com- 
promise of 1850. 

This Bill in*oposed: the organization of the Mexi¬ 
can Cession, without reference to Slavery; the ad¬ 
mission of California with a Free Constitution; the 
purchase of Texas’s claims upon New Mexico; the 
abolishment of the Slave Trade in the District of 
Columbia; and the passage of a stringent Fugitive 
Slave Law. This Act, if passed, would revoke the 
ComiDromise of 1820. There was a lierc.e contest on 
hand, and many disloyal sentiments w^ere an¬ 
nounced, and publicly applauded. Finally, by a di¬ 
vision of the Bill, into as many separate measures as 
it contained propositions, it tvas carried in Congress, 
and became the law of the land. 

5. THE CHARLESTON CONVL2NTION. 

The Southern Rights Association, of South Caro¬ 
lina, held a Convention in Charleston, in May, of the 


THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION. 71 

year 1851, and, as Mississippi was unwilling to take 
the leadership of the South, South Carolina resolved 
to take it upon herself. The resolutions of this Con¬ 
vention were very strong in sentiments of disloyalty 
to the Union. It was resolved: t “That, in the opin¬ 
ion of this meeting, the State of South Carolina can¬ 
not submit to the wrongs and aggressions, which 
have been perpetrated by the Federal Authorities 
and the Northern States, without dishonor and ruin; 
and that it is necessary for her to retrieve herself 
therefrom, whether with or without the co-operation —* *■ 
of the other Southern States.” But, despite the at¬ 
tempts of the rabid “fire-eaters,” the commercial 
classes of the State were opposed to Secession, t 
“The businessmen of the State, and more particu¬ 
larly of Charleston, § foresee in this action ruin, and 
would be glad to avert the evil.” “The leaders of 
the late movement are comparatively unknown to 
the public. It cannot be said, therefore, that they 
have the confidence of the people.” 1| 

The Convention did not seem to doubt that the 
attempt to prevent Secession by force would be 
made by the National Government. * “We have to 

t Von Holst. Critical and Constitutional History of 
the United States, 1850-1854, 30. 
t New York Tribune, May 13,1851. 

§ Von Holst. Political and Constitutional History of 
the United States, 1850-1854, ;h. 

|i Ibid. 

* Ibid. S2. 





72 


PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS. 


look forward to the probaliility of another outrage 
by that Government, in the attempt to force the 
State to remain in the Union. We suppose the at¬ 
tempt will be made, if the other States ])ermit it," 
was the langLiaj^e of the Address of the Convention 
to the Southern Rights Association of the other 
States. 

G. rj^JJR>S()NAL LIBFA^TY LA WF (1840-18G0). 

The first Personal Liberty Laws were passed by 
New York in 1840. These laws were designed to 
prevent the return of fugitive slaves to their owners, 
and therefore were virtually nullifications of the 
Federal Statutes. Wisconsin, in 1859, jiassed a 
Personal Liberty Law, and re-afiirmed the Virginia 
and Kentucky Resolutions, making them read, how¬ 
ever; “Positive defiance is the rightful remedy.” t 

After the Compromise of 1850 was passed and the 
attempt to enforce the stringent Fugitive Slave Law, 
which it carried, was made. Personal Liberty Laws 
were enacted, in rapid succession, by nearly all the 
Northern States, New Y"ork, Illinois, Massachusetts, 
Wisconsin, and Iowa taking the lead in defiance to 
the South. 

t Cyclopedia of Political Science, 11. 315-317, III. lex¬ 
ica 





THE KAXSAS-^"EBRASKA BILL. T8 

7. THE KANSAS-NEBl^ASKA BILL 
(1854-1857). 

This Bill t “Distinctly declared that the coin pro* 
inise of 1820 was inconsistent with the Constitutional 
lirinciple of non-interference with Slavery by Con¬ 
gress; that it was therefore inoperative, void, and 
repealed by the Coinproniise of 1850; and that here¬ 
after each Territory, whether north or south of 30° 
30', should admit, or exclude Slavery, as its people 
should decide.” 

The Bill was carried by the Southern Democrats 
and Southern Whigs uniting in its favor, while one- 
half the Northern Democrats united Avith the North¬ 
ern Whigs and the Free Soilers, in opposition. This 
last grouji Avere styled, Anti-Nebraska Men. The 
division thus created in the Democratic Party Avas 
soon healed, Avhile the Whig Party iieA^er again 
united. In 1856 the Anti-Nebraska Men had adopted 
the name. Republican Party. 

The Kansas question came up again in 1857, Avhen 
that Territory applied for admission as a State, un¬ 
der the Lecompton Constitution, which Avas a Pro- 
SlaA'ery Constitution. 

The diA^ergence between the tAvo sections, over the 
Slavery (]uestion Avas daily groAving more marked, 
and threats of Secession and Disunion AA^ere A^ery 


t Johnston. American Politics, 16H. 



74 


THE LINCOLIN'-DOUGLAS DEBATE. 


coiiinion. The South thought to defeat tlie North 

y leaving the question of Slavery, in the '^'erritories, 
to the Territories themselves; but, after a severe 
struggle, during which Kansas was the scene of 
plunder and carnage, the North triumphed, and 
Kansas applied for admission as a Free State. 

The last peaceful recourse had been taken by the 
South, and only a violent domination of the affairs 
of the nation, or Secession remained. A few years 
of tampering with the highest Judicial tribunal, the 
United States Supreme Court, brutal domineering in 
the halls of legislation, and concerted plans of ter¬ 
rorizing, served only to solidify the North, and di¬ 
vide the great political parties on sec tional lines, and 
then came the great shock. 

8. THE LINCOLN-DOUOLAS DEBATE (1858). 

The famous Lincoln-Douglas Debate in 1858 was 
the joinder of issue of the two great parties, that«— 
were contending to determine whether the North 
was to bow in passive obedience to the growing 
arrogance and aggressive dictation of the South, or, 
by planting themselves upon the principles of truth 
and justice, boldly withstand the further aggression 
of the Slave Power. Lincoln summed up the whole 
situation, when he opened the great debate by 
saying; t “A house divided against itself cannot 
t Blaine. Twenty Years in Congress. 



THE CAMPAIHN OE 18G0. 


stand : this nation cannot endure half Slave, half 
Free.” 

It had become evident that no permanent terri* 
torial boundary line could be maintained, between 
the two f^reat antagonistic principles, which, since 
the first breath of life was breathed into our body 
politic, had been contending for supremacy in the 
nation. The Slave-holders had recently again dem¬ 
onstrated their faithlessness, by the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise, and the Southern people had 
no faith in the North, whose fair promises were more 
than counter-balanced, in their opinion, by the agita¬ 
tions of the Abolitionists. In the State elections of 
1858, the Republicans largely increased their repre¬ 
sentation in Congress. It needed only the Campaign 
of 18G0, and the triumph of the Republican Party, 
whose leader had given voice to such sentiments, to 
touch the spark to the magazine. 

1). THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 

In 1859, the Fugitive Slave Law and the Personal 
Liberty Laws were still in force; the Kansas question 
was more alive than ever; the Dred Scott Decision 
had aroused a wild flame of passion in the North ; 
and, as the Presidential campaign approached, new 
causes of dissention were added to the already rap¬ 
idly diverging sections of the nation. John Brown, 
a fanatic, avIio had gotten his training in the border- 


76 


TIIK CAMPAiaX OF 1860. 


rnHiaii warfare of Kansas, accompanied by a small 
band of followers, seized the United States Arsenal 
at Harper's Ferry. His plan was to raise a Negro 
insurrection in the South, but he was taken and 
executed. Immediately the South flew into a raging 
passion, and refused to listen to any explanation, 
or overtures of peace or compromise. 

The Democratic Nominating Convention of 1860 
met at Charleston, South Carolina. The Doug¬ 
las men, including all the Northern delegates, were 
for leaving the Slavery (piestion to the Supreme 
Court. The Pro-Slavery men declared that Slave 
property should receive the protection of both the 
State and Nation. A third division held to the plat¬ 
form of 1856. The Douglas men were in a majority, 
and the Southern wing withdrew from the Conven¬ 
tion, and the great Democratic Party had at last 
been disrupted by the Slavery (question. 

The Republican Convention was held at Chicago. 
Delegates were present from all the Free States, and 
also from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, 
Missouri, and Texas. Lincoln was nominated for 
President, and Hannibal Hamlin for Vice-President. 

There were now four candidates for the Presidency; 
John Bell, of Tennessee; John C. Breckenridge, of 
Kentucky; Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois; and 
Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois. Lincoln carried all 
the Northern States except New Jersey, which cast 



THK CAMPAIGN 1800. 


77 


its electoral vote for Dougjlas. Bell carried Virginia, 
Tennessee and Kentucky. The remainder of the 
Southern States went for Breckenridge, excepting 
three electoral votes of Missouri, which were cast for 
Douglas. Lincoln received 180 electoral votes, the 
other candidates combined 108. The South had 
awaited the result with the greatest anxiety, and as 
soon as it was known. South Carolina took the lead 
in the movement for Secession. In the Convention, 
which she had called, by her Legislature, to meet in 
December, the action of that State’s Convention, 
which had ratified the Constitution of the United 
States, was repealed. The other Southern States 
soon followed the example of South Carolina, ex- 
cepting a few, who remained in the Union, until the 
beginning of open hostilities. 

SECTION VI. 
rb:-UNION (18G5- ). 

1. liKFERENi^ES. 

Primary Sourcb:s; —Blaine. Twenty Years in 
Congress ; McClellan. Republicanism in America; 
Congressional Record; Stevens. War between the 
States; Greeley. The American Conflict; Tourgee. 
Bricks without Straw, A Fool’s Errand, Hot Plough* 
shares. 


78 


RFX'OXSTRUCTIOX. 


2. MECONSTJl UCTION. 

The war of the Rebellion and the subsequent re¬ 
construction of the disloyal States settled forever the 
question of the right of a State to secede from the 
Federal Union. As soon as open hostilities began, 
it was seen that the rebellion must be put down, or 
the American nation would be but a myth. If one 
State, or a number of States could leave the Union at 
pleasure, who Avas to be responsible to foreign pow¬ 
ers for the enforcement of treaties, and the perform¬ 
ance of the functions of a national government, since 
no one could tell when or where the disintegration 
was to stop. 

The injury to the nation’s credit, and the general 
contempt for republican government, which the Se¬ 
cession of the Southern States caused in Europe, 
taught the American people the absurdity of the 
doctrine of State’s Rights, and the absolute necessity 
of a strong centralized government. The reaction in 
favor of national union, which followed the war, and 
continued during the period of Reconstruction, ob¬ 
literated the last vestiges of the “Nullification” and 
“Secession” doctrines, and defined the proper rela¬ 
tion of the State in the Federal system. 

The authority of the State and that of the Nation 
are each, within their own sphere, absolute. But the 
power of the State is circumscribed by its own 
boundaries. AVithin the territory of any State, also. 


RKCONSTRUCTION. 


79 


the Federal power is paramount, whenever ques¬ 
tions of local interests and questions of national 
interests clash. 

We have seen in this cursory review of the long 
contest between Union and Disunion, how both sets 
of principles originated from conditions, engendered 
by the manner in which the country was settled, 
and fostered by the climatic and physical peculiari¬ 
ties of the different sections of the country, and the 
consequent growth of institutions, customs, and doc¬ 
trines. 

The struggle was a long one, and severe, but it 
firmly established the question of the power and 
durability of republican government in America, 
and hence, demonstrated to the world the superior 
strength and utility of that form of government, 
thus paving the way for the future advancement of 
the human race in the achievement of the highest 
form of civilization. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


A PARTIAL LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO. 


Bancroft, George. History of United States from 
the Discovery of the American Continent. 10 vols. 
Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1838-1(874. “Author’s 
last revision” or third edition, is in six volumes. 
New York: Appleton, 1883-1885. The work is brought 
down to 1789, and is a valuable repository of facts, 
but is rhetorical in style. 

Benton, Thomas Hart. Thirty Years’ View; or a 
History of the Working of the American Govern¬ 
ment for Thirty Years, from 1830-1850. New York: 
Harper & Bros., 1883, 2 vols. 

Blaine, Janies G. Twenty Y'ears in Congress: 
from Lincoln to Garfield: with the events that led up 
to the iiolitical revolution of 1860. Norwich, Conn.: 
The Henry Bill Publishing Co., 1884-1886, 3 vols. 

Boone, Richard G. Education in the United 
States. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1889. 




BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


81 


Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. 2 
vols. New York: Macmillan & Co., 2d ed. 1891. A 
comprehensive and thorough treatise on the Ameri¬ 
can Constitution and political organism. 

Calhoun, John C. Works, ed. by R. K. Crall^. 0 
vols. New York: Appleton & Co., 1851-185G. Valuable 
for its copies of political documents, and exposition 
of the author’s State's Rights theories. 

Curtis, George Ticknor. Constitutional History 
of the United States from their Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence to the close of their Civil War. New York: 
Harper & Bros., 1880. This is a reprint of Mr. Curtis's 
earlier work. History of the Constitution. The new 
edition is published in two volumes, and covers the 
period between 1774-1790. 

Doyle, John A. The English Colonies in America. 
New York: Holt, 1882-1887. 8 vols. 

^ Draper, J. W. History of the American Civil War. 
New A^ork; Harper & Bros. 

Elliott, Jonathan. Debates. Philadelidiia: 1801. 
5 vols. Debates on the Constitution in the Conven¬ 
tion, and in the several State Conventions. 

Fiske, John. The Critical Period of American 
History. 1783-1789, Boston and New A'ork: Hough¬ 
ton, Mifflin & Co., 1892. The American Revolution. 
Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1891. 2 vols. 

The Federalist, ed. H. B. Dawson, University ed. 
New York: Scribner, 1874. The Constitution ex- 


82 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


pounded by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. 

Franklin, Benjamin. Life. ed. by John Bigelow. 
2d ed. rev. and cor. Philadelphia; J. B. Lippincott, 
1884. 3 vols. 

Frothingham, Richard. The Rise of the Republic 
of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 
1886. 

Greeley, Horace. The American Conflict. Hart¬ 
ford: Case, 1864-1866. 2 vols. 

Hamilton, Alexander. Complete Works. Edited 
by Henry Cabot Lodge. New York; Putnam, 1885- 
1886. 9 vols. 

Hart, Albert Bushnell. Editor. Epochs of Ameri¬ 
can History. New York and London: Longmans, 
1891-1893. 3 vols. The Colonies, 1492-1750, by Reuben 

Gold Thwaites;—Formation of the Union, 1750-1829, 
by Albert Bushnell Hart:—Division and Reunion 
1829-1885, by AVoodrow AVilson. 

Hildreth, Richard. History of the United States 
(to the end of the sixteenth Congress). New York: 
Harper & Bros., 1849-1851. 

Holst, Hermann A^on. Constitutional and Politi¬ 
cal History of the United States. 7 vols. Chicago: 
Callaghan & Co., 1876-1889. Constitutional Law of 
the United States. 

Hutchinson, Thomas. History of the Colony of 
Alassachusetts Bay, 1628-1691. Boston, 1764. History 
of the Province of Massachusetts, 1691-1774. London; 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


83 


J. Murray, 1828. 

Jefferson, Thomas. Writing's. Edited by H. A. 
Washington. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1804. 9 vols. 

Johnston, Alexander. History of American Poli¬ 
tics. 2d ed. New York: H. Holt & Co., 1892. A 
brief history of parties and party politics. 

Lodge, Henry Cabot. Short History of the Eng¬ 
lish Colonies in America. New Y"ork: Harper & Bros., 
1881. A valuable work on the social and economical 
conditions in the colonies. 

Madison, James. Letters and other Writings. 
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1865. 4 vols. 

McMaster, John B. History of the People of the 
United States from the Revolution to the Civil War. 
New Y'ork: D. Appleton & Co., 1883-1895. vols. 1-4. 

Morse, John T. Editor. American Statesmen. 
Andrew Jackson by William G. Sumner; Alexander 
Hamilton by Henry Cabot Lodge; John C. Calhoun 
by Hermann Von Holst; Henry Clay by Carl Schurz; 
George Washington by Henry Cabot Lodge; John 
Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and 
Thomas Jefferson by John T. Morse, Jr. Boston: 
Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1882-1893. 

Palfrey, John G. History of New England. Boston: 
Little, Brown & Co., 1858-1890. 5 vols. 

Pitkin, Timothy. Political and Civil History of 
the United States, 1763-1797. New Haven: 1828. 2 vols. 
Schouler, James. History of the United States of 


84 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 




America under the Constitution. New York: Dodd, 
Mead & Co., 5 vols. 

Stevens, Alexander H. A Constitutional View of 
the War between the States; Its Causes, Character, 
Conduct, and Results. Philadelphia: National Pub. 
Co., 1867. 2 vols. An argumentative statement of the 
Southern side of State Sovereignty. 

Sumner, William G. The Financier (Robert Mor¬ 
ris) and the Finances of the American Revolution. 
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1891. 

Tourgee, A. W. Hot Ploughshares. A novel, de¬ 
scribing the South immediately subsequent to the 
Civil War. New York: Fords, 1883. 

Washington, George. Writings. Edited by W. C. 
Ford. New York: Putnam, 1889-1893. 14 vols. 

AVinsor, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of 
America. Remarkable for its valuable bibliography. 
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1886. 8 vols. 

AVilson, Henry. History of the Rise and Fall of 
the Slave Power in America. Boston: Houghton, 
Mifflin & Co., 1879. 3 vols. 





\ 




I 


I 

•l 


' I 



I 

» ( 

t 




I 




9 ' 


t 




* 



{ 


« 


♦ 


) 




i 




4 


1 

V 

i 

t 


? 




i 










